Already battered by Benghazi — and with more battering certain to come, how damning we don’t yet know — Hillary Clinton has been slammed once again by news that the State Department, while she was secretary of State, refused to brand Boko Haram as a terror organization. (One wonders what they would have called the Gestapo.)

The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.

In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria. Her May 4 tweet about the girls, using the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls, was cited across the media and widely credited for raising awareness of their plight.

Well, better late than never, as they say. Or better panicked than never.

Of course, anyone who had been paying the slightest attention to world affairs, surely a secretary of State, would have known about Boko Haram’s legendary psychopathic misogyny for years. So what possible excuse would there be for not branding them a terror organization? Could this have been the work of the same person who refused to answer pleas for backup from our now deceased ambassador in Libya? It’s certainly consistent. Or maybe she just didn’t want to do anything to endanger the family cash flow from the UAE and elsewhere.

Clinton’s spokespeople unsurprisingly refused multiple requests for comment on The Daily Beast’s story, which deserves to be read in its entirety as it is excellent reporting by Rogin. (The FBI, CIA and the Justice Department, among others, were all lined up against State in seeking to have Boko Haram declared a terror organization. Interesting too, Boko Haram was allied with al Qaeda, a connection that takes back again to… Benghazi. It was over a year after that event, November 2013, that State, under Kerry, finally declared Boko Haram to be terrorists.)

So how will this all play out for Hillary going forward? Undoubtedly her court eunuch friends at the New York Times, Washington Post and the networks will do their best to ignore this. As of 1PM Pacific, the NYT has nothing on the story, almost a full day after The Daily Beast broke it. I don’t even want to compare this to their endless braying about the Republicans’ “War on Women” by doing a count of those stories. It would give me a headache. Free birth control has always been of more concern to the NYT than the Islamic women murderers of the Boko Haram or similar groups, just as it has been to Gloria Steinem, et al. (How do the faculty and students of Brandeis University look now in their rescinding an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali in light of the Boko Haram atrocities?)

But all is not lost. Times are changing, slightly. There are good signs — and maybe there will be more — and from Hollywood, of all places. Jay Leno, perhaps because finally free of his overlords at NBC, has just yesterday, with Ellen DeGeneres and others, publicly protested the sharia-loving (i. e. misogynistic) sultan of Brunei’s ownership of the Beverly Hills Hotel. A drop in the bucket, yes, but it’s something, even though Hollywood has yet to say anything about the gobs of production money it is also receiving from the sharia-loving Gulf States.

Will these people still vote for Hillary Clinton? Undoubtedly. Old habits die hard. But still others may wake up to who is fighting the real “War on Women” and give Hillary the kiss-off.

ADDENDUM: PJM’s Bridget Johnson just reminded me of her post from November 2013 when State finally declared Boko Haram a terror organization. What’s most fascinating is the cluelessness of the asst. secretary of the religious motivation of Boko Haram. To them, everything is economic.

Hillary's Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Dept was Huma Abedin, who has family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and belonged, herself, to a Muslim sisterhood organization. Could this be a connection to Hillary's failure to label an obvious terrorist group a terrorist group? Or is it just that she likes all the Muslim contributions to The Clinton Foundation?

Where are all those usually screaming "Islamophobia" for any criticism of Islam given these recent Boko Haram atrocities. Silence? Excuses? Obfuscation? Islam once again demonstrates the compassion and love inherent in the "religion of peace." There is no peaceful coexistence for Islam. It is an evil ideology disguised as a religion. Erase this evil from the earth.

This clearly calls for a Special Committee. Hillary is clearly part of the Boko Haram kidnapping conspiracy and I wouldn't doubt that she is somehow profiting from the sale of these poor girls into sex slavery. Very strangely the INS has recently relaxed rules on immigration from Nigeria, encouraging UM (Unaccompanied Minor) migration from sub-Saharan Africa, opening the door for these poor girls be exported to the US and sold into the sex trade. Who is profiting from the sale of these young women, many of whom are virgins?

The House must look at these issues. Gowdy is busy, I'd suggest a prosecutorial panel of Gohmert and Sessions. Hillary is neck deep in facilitating this travesty!